W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2010

Re: old NCName used in CURIE syntax by design?

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:48:07 -0600
Message-ID: <4B6AC207.7020604@aptest.com>
To: Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
Okay - just to be clear.  The RDFa Syntax recommendation SHOULD have 
referenced the Namespaces in XML Recommendation Second Edition - 
published in 2006.  It was an error that it did not.  XMLNS2e references 
the XML Recommendation Fourth Edition.  So that is brought in too.  
These recommendations do not change the scope of characters in NCNAME as 
far as I know, but I will continue to check.

Shane McCarron wrote:
> Hmm... I guess I need to look into this harder.  It is correct that we 
> do not want to go towatd XML Revision 5 because of its changes to 
> legal name characters.  The entire XHTML suite of specifications is 
> setting on Revision 4.  If the updated namespaces spec relies upon 
> revision 5....  I am not sure what the working group will want to do.
>
> I will keep you all posted.
>
> Lin Clark wrote:
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> I noticed the same thing last week. Michael Hausenblas sent a 
>> message[1] to the RDF in XHTML mailing list. The conclusion was that 
>> this is an error.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Lin
>>
>> [1] 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2010Jan/0062.html 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org 
>> <mailto:connolly@w3.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 00:06 +0000, Mark Birbeck wrote:
>>     > Hi Dan,
>>     >
>>     > Forgive me, but I don't quite follow what you're getting at.
>>     >
>>     > Are you saying that 'prefix' would have been better defined using
>>     > 'Name' from the XML 1.0 spec?
>>
>>     No... I'm saying: the definition of Name in XML went
>>     from, roughly, "only prescribe characters" to "everything except
>>     disallowed characters". See http://cmsmcq.com/mib/?p=606
>>     for some relevant commentary.
>>
>>     And NCName in the XML namespaces spec is defined in terms of
>>     Name from XML. and CURIE is defined in terms of NCName from
>>     namespaces.
>>
>>     I tried to find a relevant test case in
>>      http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/
>>     but I got lost in the maze.
>>
>>
>>     XML and Namespaces got updated, but evidently that didn't
>>     complete until just after RDFa was cooked.
>>
>>
>>     > If so, I don't see how it could, since 'prefix' needs to be the
>>     > 'non-colon' version of 'Name', i.e., 'NCName'. This is only
>>     defined in
>>     > the XML Namespaces spec, as far as I know.
>>     >
>>     > But that might not be what you mean...have I missed what you're
>>     driving at?
>>     >
>>     > :)
>>     >
>>     > Regards,
>>     >
>>     > Mark
>>
>>
>>     --
>>     Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>>     gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 12:48:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 4 February 2010 12:48:56 GMT